32 replies to this topic

[kneelbeforezod]

If you were to come to me and say about Quantum Of Solace "I didn't like it", I'd understand. Equally if you said you loved it, I would understand.

I'm just going to rattle off some points as I think of them (there will be some spoilers):

1) The biggest failing of the film is the lack of narrative drive, due to the confusing nature of the plot. I don't know if the script wasn't ready, or if the editing schedule was too rushed, but I sat down with the plot of Casino Royale crystal clear in my head, and I concentrated... and I got confused. Even now I'm trying to work out who exactly was working for who, or why that person did that, or why that body turned up there... and all of this comes at the cost of drama.

2) This is probably the most stylish Bond film. Whatever the faults of the film, I don't think Forster is the problem. Also, this never felt like a film "directed by the 2nd unit" as some have said. The firm hand of Forster is all over this, with interesting uses of intercutting, dissolves, striking sets and locales, framing of shots, even a freeze frame... all of this combined with the atmospheric music and the gritty, lived in locations was what kept me really interested. None of this film feels set-bound (none of those dreadful sets plus CGI backdrops from Indy 4).

3) The action is only OK. To be honest, the boat chase could have been cut altogether, it feels totally pointless. There is nothing to match the construction site chase or the tanker chase or even the stairwell fight from CR. The staging and editing is, I suppose, occasionally Bourne-like... but in some ways I think it falls between two stools, neither having the crystal clear impact of CR's action, or the visceral intensity of the Bourne films. It often feels shot too close, but at the same time there are some stylish, striking shots here and there. Not bad.

4) There is some unusually smart stuff in the film. I loved the juxtapostion of Bond and Olga's fights at the end, the way it's edited, and the subtle (too subtle?) emotional impact that comes from one of them taking a life, and one of them sparing it... it's interesting, quietly powerful stuff.

5) Daniel Craig is great, he's given plenty of cool moments which I shall enjoy revisiting. But you knew that already, so moving on...

6) The airplane/freefall sequence isn't bad... but I found myself wondering whether they made the right decision in how they staged the freefall. Clearly, by using that wind tunnel thing, you get the realistic wind-deformation of the actors' faces... but by taking this route, you then have to CGI the background. Consequently the realism you gain in one way is undermined by the fakery in another. I wonder if stuntmen jumping out of a plane might have been more effective.

7) I found the way Vesper's story is resolved very satisfying. It's a well written scene at the end of the film, where Bond is once again in a position to take a life... and.... SPOILER ALERT.................. doesn't. This is why I don't think it's fair when some critics of the film accuse Bond of being a mindless killing machine. That's the whole point, by the end of Bond's journey, he's thinking twice about killing. Admittedly, this is very subtly done. Perhaps too subtly for some audiences.

8) The opera scene is terrific. Again, it suffers from a lack of clarity in terms of what's at stake etc... but it's a fascinating sequence. The intercutting of the action with Tosca is really effective, and yet even as I was enjoying it, part of me was wondering if it belonged in a Bond film. It verges on pretentious I think, yet I still liked it.

So to conclude... I suppose I have to say that the film is a disappointment. I think a lot audiences won't know what to make of it. Part of that disappointment will come from setting the film up as a sequel to CR, but then delivering a film that feels very, very different. It's got a bleak, stylish, occasionally 70's-spy-movie feel to it that will leave some people cold, but I loved. It's great to see them trying something new, I give Eon full credit for that. This absolutely isn't Tomorrow Never Dies, they have taken some risks with this film. And if they had just nailed the drama, the forward momentum, the stakes... this could have been one of the best in the series.

QOS is neither thrilling nor particularly exciting... and yet at the same time it's never boring, it's extremely stylish and I'm looking forward to seeing it again.

I'm happy to take any questions, from my position up here on the fence...

[HildebrandRarity]

Thanks Zod old friend.

So?

6 out of 10? 7? What's the ranking? Better than Rye?

Also...what did you think of the score by DA?

Cheers

[Sir James Moloney]

Good review Zod very clear

Couple of questions:

1 - What did you think of the car chase?

2 - What´s your favorite scene in the film?

...

3- Is it a 1/10?

[kneelbeforezod]

Thanks Zod old friend.

So?

6 out of 10? 7? What's the ranking? Better than Rye?

Also...what did you think of the score by DA?

Cheers

Lets give it a 7! No... a 6! Oh knows. This film is a tricky one.

And as for the score, I have to say I only really noticed it a few times... there's some moody, incidental stuff for many of the quiter scenes... but there's nothing that sticks in my head like the DADA DADA DADA DA-DAAAAHHHH bit when Bond is running up the crane in CR

[Captain Tightpants]

6) The airplane/freefall sequence isn't bad... but I found myself wondering whether they made the right decision in how they staged the freefall. Clearly, by using that wind tunnel thing, you get the realistic wind-deformation of the actors' faces... but by taking this route, you then have to CGI the background. Consequently the realism you gain in one way is undermined by the fakery in another. I wonder if stuntmen jumping out of a plane might have been more effective.

No, you don't; you just get a composte shot, rather like the car being blown about by the backwash from the jet in Casino Royale. They used a motion-control camera for that sequence, which can be programmed to follow a very specific pattern of millimetre-perfect movements with absolute precision. You film the actors doing their thing in the wind tunnel using the camera, and then you take it out to wherever the stunt is set, and use the camera's settings to prefectly re-create the fall. In effect, both the actors and the backdrop are real footage, with the only difference being that they weren't filmed in the same place.

[sharpshooter]

How about the runtime, was that an issue?

[kneelbeforezod]

1 - What did you think of the car chase?

It's ok. It's not a classic, and it's quite strange how we seem to join it midway... god knows who that lorry driver is that's trying to ram Bond! It's cut slightly too close I would say, but it's still pretty decent. It's quite short too, though that's fine, and it ends on a cool note.

2 - What´s your favorite scene in the film?

I have a few, mostly little moments:
There's a scene where Bond is under lockdown in a hotel, M wants him out of action... the way Bond disarms his captors, and then sneaks off is very cool.
I liked the little Vesper related scene at the end. I love the stuff with Fields, Bond barely takes two steps into the crappy hotel she's booked before turning on his heels and walking out. And his line to the guy in the next, much posher, hotel, is priceless.

I suppose it's telling that my favourite stuff in this wasn't the action.

3- Is it a 1/10?

No effing way

[Sir James Moloney]

Thanks Zod, always nice to ear what you think and have to say. I give it a lot of weight.

Cheers

JM

[kneelbeforezod]

No, you don't; you just get a composte shot, rather like the car being blown about by the backwash from the jet in Casino Royale. They used a motion-control camera for that sequence, which can be programmed to follow a very specific pattern of millimetre-perfect movements with absolute precision. You film the actors doing their thing in the wind tunnel using the camera, and then you take it out to wherever the stunt is set, and use the camera's settings to prefectly re-create the fall. In effect, both the actors and the backdrop are real footage, with the only difference being that they weren't filmed in the same place.

I don't quite follow... you mean at some point, a camera was filming an actual fall through the air? Anyway... it doesn't look very realistic. I'm using "CGI" incorrectly, but the sequence has that "computery" tinkered-with look. The car being blown away by the jet looked totally real to me. It's still a decent sequence though.

[Sir James Moloney]

Just one more question for the road Zod

What was the worst scene in the film?

[kneelbeforezod]

How about the runtime, was that an issue?

No not at all. I suppose the succession of action scenes at the beginning does feel a little odd, but most of them are quite brief... so there's plenty of dialogue scenes in the film... but they are often a little confusing.

Just one more question for the road Zod

What was the worst scene in the film?

I wasn't a big fan of the scene where the suit of armour comes to life and chases Bond round the hotel lobby, and the subsequent sword fight.

In actual fact though there are no bad scenes I don't think. The boat chase would get the chop from me though, for feeling rather inorganic and pointless.

[Sir James Moloney]

What was the worst scene in the film?
I wasn't a big fan of the scene where the suit of armour comes to life and chases Bond round the hotel lobby, and the subsequent sword fight.

In actual fact though there are no bad scenes I don't think. The boat chase would get the chop from me though, for feeling rather inorganic and pointless.

Damned medieval props! I guess he saw CR and knew Bond didn´t have his armour, so he wanted to give him one

Good to know there are no bad scenes

[Royal Dalton]

Thanks, Zod.

[Captain Tightpants]

No, you don't; you just get a composte shot, rather like the car being blown about by the backwash from the jet in Casino Royale. They used a motion-control camera for that sequence, which can be programmed to follow a very specific pattern of millimetre-perfect movements with absolute precision. You film the actors doing their thing in the wind tunnel using the camera, and then you take it out to wherever the stunt is set, and use the camera's settings to prefectly re-create the fall. In effect, both the actors and the backdrop are real footage, with the only difference being that they weren't filmed in the same place.

I don't quite follow... you mean at some point, a camera was filming an actual fall through the air? Anyway... it doesn't look very realistic. I'm using "CGI" incorrectly, but the sequence has that "computery" tinkered-with look. The car being blown away by the jet looked totally real to me. It's still a decent sequence though.

The camera wasn't dropped - most likely it was in a helicopter or on a crane of some kind - but they did actually film the exteriors.

[ACE]

Thanks for a thoughtful, insightful review, kneelbeforezod

[Elvenstar]

I was reeeeally looking forward to your review as you seemed to be a very down to earth person.
I feel even more relieved that you liked Tosca sequence
So it's officially a fact that Qos could have been a lot better, maybe if they (or Haggis in particular) were given much more time to develop the script as it seems to be the main problem here. Maybe they should hire YOLT from IMDB to write the next one I loved his review. So of course I have some questions if U please.
So can you call it a missed opportunity in a way?
What shall they do next to improve their mistakes?
What about the humour?
Was there a lot of shaky camera?
What was the audience reaction (I hope no one left the theater )?
How was our Ukranian girl?
Will people return for multiple viewings?
Thanks in advance.
Just can't wait for another week

[Mr Teddy Bear]

This has to be the most disappointing review of QoS I've read yet because it feels so honest and down to earth. Now I'm expecting a decent/average 100 minutes of entertainment and not much more. Oh well.

Edited by Mr Teddy Bear, 30 October 2008 - 09:13 AM.

[Loomis]

god knows who that lorry driver is that's trying to ram Bond!

Well, I haven't seen the film, but perhaps he's just, well, just a lorry driver who's trying to ram Bond. After all, you do get psychos who aren't affiliated to intelligence agencies or multinational criminal organisations. I think it'd be a pretty cool touch if the character were just a really pissed off member of the public.

You make some very interesting points, kneelbeforezod.

[ForMathis]

Sounds like the problems come from the rush to get the film made, resulting in a very weak script held together by the charismatic direction and leading man.

Hopefully for the next Bond film they spend more time working on the script.

[Joe Bond]

Nice review, zod. I am really getting excited about this and it seems the plot is like the second Harry Palmer movie Funeral in Berlin which I just watched the other day. In Funeral in Berlin there are many twists and its like your aren't sure who killed who and what everyones motives are so you have to fill in the blanks in your head and thats what I did with Funeral in Berlin so I feel this is a good movie to watch before going to QoS.

[kneelbeforezod]

Sounds like the problems come from the rush to get the film made, resulting in a very weak script held together by the charismatic direction and leading man.

Hopefully for the next Bond film they spend more time working on the script.

I wouldn't say the script was "very weak"... the dialogue is all intelligent, and occasionally funny. There are many subtle character beats, and it definitely goes somewhere in terms of Bond's character. The scenes of M berating Bond for all the people he's killing are there for a reason, she and we are meant to think Bond is going off the rails... but he isn't.

It's even possible that I am just being a bit thick, with regards to the confusing aspects of the story... I mean, there are film noirs with far more convoluted plots... it's possible the current state of the script is exactly what the filmmakers intended. But it wasn't my cup of tea

[MattofSteel]

god knows who that lorry driver is that's trying to ram Bond!

Well, I haven't seen the film, but perhaps he's just, well, just a lorry driver who's trying to ram Bond. After all, you do get psychos who aren't affiliated to intelligence agencies or multinational criminal organisations. I think it'd be a pretty cool touch if the character were just a really pissed off member of the public.

You make some very interesting points, kneelbeforezod.

Having seen that clip, I don't think the lorry driver is...anyone.

Seems to me that the chase forces him into the wall, and his knee jerk reaction (as would be any driver's) is to over-correct and pull violently back the other way in order to save himself. His impaling of the Aston is purely accidental, hence the look of surprise on Dan's face - from the minor clip alone, I found the moment to be actually quite funny.

[kneelbeforezod]

god knows who that lorry driver is that's trying to ram Bond!

Well, I haven't seen the film, but perhaps he's just, well, just a lorry driver who's trying to ram Bond. After all, you do get psychos who aren't affiliated to intelligence agencies or multinational criminal organisations. I think it'd be a pretty cool touch if the character were just a really pissed off member of the public.

Indeed, the more I think about it, the more I think this is a very striking and unusual way to start a film... literally straight into a chase. It's cool!

Having seen that clip, I don't think the lorry driver is...anyone.

Seems to me that the chase forces him into the wall, and his knee jerk reaction (as would be any driver's) is to over-correct and pull violently back the other way in order to save himself. His impaling of the Aston is purely accidental, hence the look of surprise on Dan's face - from the minor clip alone, I found the moment to be actually quite funny.

You know you could be right... on my next viewing I'm going to sit further back from the screen so it's all a bit clearer!

[MattofSteel]

Ha, I was just thinking a moment ago "Note to self, sit in the back row" based on all the complaints about the action being up close.

[kneelbeforezod]

I was reeeeally looking forward to your review as you seemed to be a very down to earth person.
I feel even more relieved that you liked Tosca sequence
So it's officially a fact that Qos could have been a lot better, maybe if they (or Haggis in particular) were given much more time to develop the script as it seems to be the main problem here. Maybe they should hire YOLT from IMDB to write the next one I loved his review. So of course I have some questions if U please.
So can you call it a missed opportunity in a way?
What shall they do next to improve their mistakes?
What about the humour?
Was there a lot of shaky camera?
What was the audience reaction (I hope no one left the theater )?
How was our Ukranian girl?
Will people return for multiple viewings?
Thanks in advance.
Just can't wait for another week

So many questions

In no particular order: Yes, I think it was a missed opportunity in terms of really hammering out a great story... if they had done that, this could have been a classic. So that's the first thing I would fix for the next one. I would also go back to a cleaner, more traditional editing style for the action, with a director who specıalıses in that stuff... there's no reason why a more traditionally shot action scene can't be completely modern and dynamic. I wouldn't call this shakey-cam... but some of it doesn't flow that well. The fight scenes are good though, a couple of really cold, brutal kills by Bond, which was great.

Audience reaction was muted, but nobody seemed to hate it... there was a bit of confusion.

There is less humour, and what there is is more low key, like Casino Royale. Only a couple of moments really made me laugh. The aforementioned hotel lobby scene with Fields was really funny, and it comes from the character.

Olga was fine, I thought, and I like the final moment between her and Bond.

And finally, I'll certainly be watching it again

[MattofSteel]

Hey Zod, couple of oddball questions from me (I think everything else has been just about covered!)-

1) The Bourne comparison thing is driving me nuts - personally, I don't believe that "driven hero + fast editing + naturalistic environments = Bourne" like some tend to, but it's obvious that Quantum sort of leans more in the direction of those qualities. From the clips I've seen, the film still seems to absolutely reek (in a good way) of Bond iconography and feeling. Did you find that was the case?

2) Might be tough to remember - how was the soundtrack mixing? CR's was great, the right parts of the music could be heard at all the right time's, but DAD's was absolutely atrocious, I found (sound FX always overshadowed Arnold's work). From what you remember, did the score play well behind the movie?

3) I'm forming a pre-judgement that this film was designed with an eye toward re-watchability, as it's become obvious from teh franchise's history that THIS is how many of the films ultimately come to be remembered and some of the real timeless ones have benefitted from it (notably OHMSS, to a lesser extent the early Connery ones). Do you think that some of the complexity issues, etc., will become more palatable with repeated viewings and, ultimately, this film might be remembered "better" than it was initially perceived?

4) This is kind of a weird one. I look at Bond with a kind of "seasonal" context, out of some odd sense of personal nostalgia . Brosnan's films all remind me of winter (due to the snow and cold-looking locations no doubt), whereas Goldfinger, for example, seems to take place in the dead heat of July. CR kind of felt like mid-fall to me. Would you say Solace is a return to the Connery-style "summer-feel" Bond films that we haven't really seen since, IMO, Licence to Kill?

As I said, Oddball questions . The only things on my mind about the film at this point, really.

[kneelbeforezod]

great questions matt... I'm currently on a train to watch 2 more films at the London Film Festival, and typing this on an iPhone ain't easy.... But I will get stuck into your questions later!

[Judo chop]

Allllrighty then.

It's plain to see that there are tough decisions ahead for me.

Gah. I'm TOO WEAK to wait TWO WEEKS!

[MattofSteel]

great questions matt... I'm currently on a train to watch 2 more films at the London Film Festival, and typing this on an iPhone ain't easy.... But I will get stuck into your questions later!

Not to worry, I have 13 days to kill before the film anyhow!

[bondrules]

This is the most objective review I have read so far.

In terms of accuracy, this seems to be the most matching review of how I see the movie at this moment (before watching it)

I think, for me, the worst thing is the how great it could have been part. Having said that, I think I will end up placing QoS in my top 10 for the series regardless.

TY for the review.

Edited by bondrules, 30 October 2008 - 03:38 PM.